So they are being honest with their users... They must be new to the open
source world :-)
> From the user manual:
>
> "Although Wicket is a very convenient, efficient and powerful way to
> code a web application, it almost certainly will consume more server
> side resources (memory in particular) than most existing frameworks,
> including JSP, Tapestry and JSF. In other words, the benefits of
> Wicket are not achieved without a price. "
>
> "Since no significant applications have yet been written in Wicket,
> performance characteristics of the toolkit are not yet well understood
> and it is expected that Wicket may not be appropriate for web
> applications which require especially high performance and/or which
> must be highly available."
>
> Yikes......not exactly a great advertisement.
>
> e.
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Robert Zeigler wrote:
>
>> Eric Schneider wrote:
>>> Jonathan,
>>> Does wicket have built-in state management similar to Tapestry? (i.e.
>>> persistent page and component properties, form rewind, etc.).
>>> Thanks,
>>> eric
>>
>> I just checked the link out briefly; it does, indeed, have built-in
>> state management. I just did a quick once over of the site, but, as
>> far as I can tell, here are some of the key differences between the
>> two frameworks:
>>
>> 1) Tapestry gives you the choice of going stateful (through the
>> session) or stateless. In wicket, all applications seem to be always
>> stateful (via the session). In return, it looks like the state
>> management may be a bit more transparent (in most but not all aspects)
>> in wicket than in tapestry.
>>
>> 2) Wicket components and pages consist of an html template (appears to
>> be required) + a POJO class (also appears to be required). Tapestry
>> components and pages consist of an html template (components may or
>> may not have a template), a .jwc or .page (xml) configuration file,
>> and a java class (optional). Thus, it looks like all configuration
>> and wiring of objects to pages is done in java code in wicket, ala
>> swing.
>>
>>
>> 3) All template-backing java classes in wicket are POJO. In tapestry,
>> you have to implement the IComponent interface or the IPage
>> interface, which usually consists of extending one of several base
>> classes. However, HLS appears to be looking into ways to change
>> that, so, look for POJO page and component classes in tapestry in
>> the future.
>>
>> Other notes:
>>
>> The quickstarter page mentions that they assume you have at least java
>> 1.4 installed; I'm not sure if that means that wicket requires java
>> 1.4, or if just the quickstarter kit requires it, but it's something
>> to keep in mind.
>>
>> They make some claim about component libraries being worlds easier to
>> put together than in tapestry of JSf. I can't speak for JSF, but
>> tapestry component libraries are really pretty trivial to put
>> together, so I think this is an exaggeration, personally.
>>
>> Both are available under the apache 2.0 license.
>>
>> I will stress the fact that I just did a pretty quick once over of the
>> wicket site, so, take the post with grain of salt. =)
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Jonathan Carlson wrote:
>>> Just to mention... Wicket is a Tapestry-like web framework that
>>> hasn't reached 1.0 yet, but seems much simpler to learn than
>>> Tapestry while still using a pure HTML markup like Tapestry.
>>> When they get the UserDoc rewritten to reflect all the changes
>>> they've made, it will be hard to beat. (IMHO :-) The original
>>> creater worked at Sun on the Swing toolset (don't hold it against
>>> him :-) and is a good documenter.
>>> http://wicket.sf.net
>>> - Jonathan P.S. No, I'm not a Wicket developer,
>>> but I'm a Tapestry-approach
>>> admirer who has been very pleased with how quickly I've become
>>> productive with Wicket.
>>> >>> michael_gentr..anniemae.com 2005-02-11 9:51:07 AM >>>
>>> Just to beat on the drums some more, Cayenne is my new EOF. With
>>> the 1.1 version, Cayenne really became capable of replacing EOF
>>> (optimistic locking, etc) for my needs. The GUI modeler is
>>> useful (compare to open source ORM frameworks). The framework
>>> and
>>> modeler
>>> are under active development. Plus, you have the source code.
>>> Let
>>> me repeat: You have the source code! I've been able to step
>>> through
>>> the code in the Eclipse debugger to figure out what was going on
>>> (usually my mistake, but sometimes you catch a Cayenne bug and
>>> when
>>> you report the problem, which you can do with great precision, it
>>> gets fixed -- quickly). The mailing lists are great. There is
>>> an energy here that is missing with EOF/WO.
>>> I've started using Tapestry a bit, too. I'm by no means an
>>>
>>> expert,
>>> but it seems to be WO-like. Has some nice things compared to WO,
>>> but lacks some things in WO, too (can't reuse bindings is a big
>>> annoyance). Cayenne works great inside Tapestry. Cayenne +
>>> Tapestry + Tomcat: Free. Having the source code: Priceless.
>>> /dev/mrg
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* Dov Rosenberg [mailto:dov.rosenber..onviveon.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:52 PM
>>> *To:* cayenne-use..bjectstyle.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: Cayenne vs EOF: How to questions?
>>> That is good to hear. How dramatic of a change is it to move from
>>> EOF to Cayenne? Are you using Tapestry as well? Have you come
>>> across
>>> anything that has given you pause about Cayenne?
>>> Thanks in advance
>>> -- Dov Rosenberg
>>> Conviveon Corporation
>>> http://www.conviveon.com
>>> On 2/10/05 6:37 PM, "Bryan Lewis" <brya..aine.rr.com> wrote: On
>>> the first question, I'm currently converting several old apps
>>> from WebObjects 4.5 to Cayenne and have had no trouble keeping
>>> our old flattened relationships. See the user's guide:
>>>
>>> http://objectstyle.org/cayenne/modelerguide/modeling-object-layer/
>>> flattenedrel.html
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Dov Rosenberg <mailto:dov.rosenber..onviveon.com>
>>> *To:* cayenne-use..bjectstyle.org *Sent:*
>>> Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:52 PM
>>> *Subject:* Cayenne vs EOF: How to questions?
>>> A few questions on the capabilities of Cayenne as compared
>>>
>>> to Apple
>>> EOF
>>> 1. Does Cayenne support flattened relationships like EOF?
>>> If so,
>>> what is the equivalent? 2. I understand that Cayenne does
>>> not currently support
>>> EOPrototypes to make it easier to switch between databases, what
>>>
>>> is
>>> the Cayenne preferred method for supporting multiple databases?
>>> Seems like it has something to do with DataMaps. Not sure though
>>>
>>> 3. How can I programmatically swap out my connection dictionary
>>>
>>> at
>>> application startup? I.e. Allow me to store userid/password in
>>> separate file from the cayenne.xml and update them when the app
>>> starts up. 4. Is there a hook for generating primary keys
>>> on the client side
>>> similar to what we currently do with a DatabaseContextDelegate
>>> and
>>> our own guid generator? 5. Is there any Cayenne support
>>> for doing lightweight, high volume
>>> SQL processing (i.e. For batch updates)? EOF has too much
>>> overhead
>>> for large amounts of sql processing in batch mode. Ideally a
>>> smarter version of RawRowsForSQL that doesnt create all the
>>> objects in an object graph.
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> **********************************************************************
>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>>> they
>>> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
>>> notify
>>> the system manager.
>>> www.katun.com
>>>
>>> **********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Feb 14 2005 - 13:48:43 EST